If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It does insure he is out of power.
So, if we do nothing, you can expect no more terrorist events? How naive are you?
And there you answer the question. Very naive. The war is already on, and isn't ending just because you wish it so. Can't turn the clock back. No time machines available.
So, his invasion of Poland/France/Russia etc wouldn't have been prevented if we'd acted earlier then? We wouldn't have prevented the final solution by diarming Germany in the thirties - even if this meant doing it by force?
No, and you cannot prevent someone from acting if they want to, just by telling them not to. Sometimes it takes physical restraint.
No excitement in that comment. Just a recognition that someone had said something immensely stupid.
Who said it would?
First point. If you have been reading you will never have seen me suggest that Iraq is connected to the war against terrorism.
Second Point. If we keep ourseleves to ourselves, can you guarantee that other nations will do the same?
Worth noting that the majority of Iraq armaments don't actually come from the UK or the US. But France and Russia.
Whoops.
Did you enjoy your trip back into the past?
Ready to face reality?
Many of the conflicts we see today have occurred, we were selling the arms to Sadam in the first place - although not to the extent of *other* nations, we aren'tshitting ourselves about him having them now - we're just going to stop him before he can use them on our homelands, and we are walking into another war.
Perhaps another solution to this little problem is the one which you won't face. It's a non-violent solution and the one guaranteed to satisfy the US, UK, France and Germany etc.
Saddam steps down of his own free will.
Can you see that happening?
Yes in hindsight stopping Hitler earlier by force would've prevented the final solution. However we don't know if Sadam is planning a similar holocaust so we can't justify using force to stop him. We know Sadam is acting violently towards his own people, but we've known this for years - why is now the time to act? He's had WsMD for years, why is he now a threat and not then?
If you believe in this apparant necessity, then you will also believe in war. Tell me when this necessity arose, and why?
Who said it would?
DJP pointed out that by killing him he could not actuate any plans he may have.
Second Point. If we keep ourseleves to ourselves, can you guarantee that other nations will do the same?
No, I can't but I'm not speaking on behalf of other nations. I don't want England to enter this war because I don't believe it's a justified one.
Worth noting that the majority of Iraq armaments don't actually come from the UK or the US. But France and Russia.
Why does this matter, we still sold him the arms, and we're now using that as a reason to invade. Surely that's entrapment?
Many of the conflicts we see today have occurred, we were selling the arms to Sadam in the first place - although not to the extent of *other* nations, we aren'tshitting ourselves about him having them now - we're just going to stop him before he can use them on our homelands, and we are walking into another war.
Right, we're not shitting ourselves about it, but feel the need to lash out? Plus, I thought this war was about stopping him from using them on his own homeland. Since when did he threaten to attack UK?
greenfields.
Are you really that naive? Or do you assume that such capability must follow conventional means?
Saddam had the capability to attack the US/UK in 1988. There is no reason to believe that he still doesn't have that capability.
Wrong war, wrong time.
Oh, and it is Iraq's responsibility to show that they have complied with the resolutions (which Saddam's statement yesterday clearly shows they have not).
Using such would be readily apparent as its vicitms would largely survive and then the retaliation would be 10 fold. If he is a self-preservationistic as he has long been credited, then highly unlikely he would launch such an attack with the world's attention on him.
At any rate, any stocks he might have after more than 10 years would be seriously degraded and more than likely unusable.
Want to bet?
Glad you are such an expert. Stores of Mustard Gas found in Europe dating back to before WWII have been found to be still viable and dangerous.
In terms of WMDs the point made was that Mustard Gas is a Blister Agent which, while potentially lethal, is more akin in its destructive ability as napalm (which you yourself have dismissed as a WMD previously). Yes it causes burning of the eyes, respitory tract, and other extremities, however in comparison with nerve agents such as Sarin or VX it requires enormously greater quantities to achieve mass kill than these others.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/mustard_print.html
How exactly, you must excuse my follish ignorance and naivety....
Also if we accept this fact then does that not rather put paid to the other key pro-war argument that once Saddam has the capability to attack then he will because he is 'mad' or 'doesn't think like us'?
If he could then why didn't he attack us?
I wish we all came clear and admit once and for all that although there would be many benefits from removing Saddam from power, the United States are pushing for war for their own reasons, and playing the human rights, peace and terrorism cards to win the world over.
Now you can read minds?
In 1939, Hitler said it was never his intention to have any conflict with the Soviet Union, the good ally of Germany.
For Toadborg:
You give a person a suitcase of Sarin and put them on an airplane. You infect a person with Anthrax and send them to JFK airport. A nation that has a record of willingness to use both suicide bombers and both biological and chemical weapons has the means to attack any nation on Earth.
It is a very lame excuse.
Not when you qualify it with them having illustrated a willingness to use suicide bombers and WMD. Only one nation qualifies as a matter of fact.
Iraq used suicide bombers during the war with Iran.
If he always has been able to attack then why hasn't he?
Why didn't Hitler attack Poland in 1938? Or the Soviet Union in 1939?
Again, is this ever likely in Iraq?
Or he didn't attack because of the west's appeasement?
The West's.... I'm not supporting appeasement by the way but I cn't think of any other reason...
He was never in a significant position of strength regarding the USSR. He attacked anyway.
I'd say that Hitler didn't attack because he wasn't ready for his own reasons. Those reasons might have been as simple as having his fortune teller say it was a bad year.
I think it is plausible that Hitler could have defeated the USSR, he attacked because he thought he could win....
Saddam knows he couldn't win a war of agression else surely he would have done something in the last 12 years?
You say that 12 years is long enough to prove inspections don't work but surely the same applies in showing that Saddam has no will or ability to wage a war of agression........
And it was no more plausible that Hitler could defeat the USSR than Japan could defeat the USA. Simply a matter of logistics.
What if the Germans had been led by someone with more tactical nous, who did not give 'no-retreat' orders that cost the lives of so many troops and who had not brought the US into the war, surely it was possible?
The situation with Japan was very much different, they had an ocean between them for a start....
The Germans couldn't have beat the USSR under any circumstances. The best they could have hoped for was a situation like that they achieved in WWI. A stalemate.
The problem was simply that the USSR was too big, had too many resources (especially manpower) and has those nasty winters. It was logistically impossible to conquer. Most especially not with a logistics train that relied on horses and carts.
"Amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics"
It's always true.
As for Saddam, who knows? Maybe reading a history of Nebachaneezer will give a clue.
I tend to agree with you, but I've read a couple of papers that suggest otherwise (oddly for the same logistical reason).
The main points, if I remember correctly were:
Hitler postponed the invasion of the USSR three times. If he had not done this, it is likely that the Germans would have taken Moscow (they did take part of the outskirts anyway beofre the cold and fresh reinforcements from Siberia drove them out)
If the Germans had taken Moscow, the Soviet Union would have had a tough time coordinating supplies and troop movements because Moscow effectively served as the only hub for the rain lines throughout the country. They definately would have had a much tougher time getting supplies to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
The other point they made was that Hitler stupidly tried to take Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad all at the same time. If he had taken Moscow first, and then Stalingrad, he would have had access to the oil fields he needed. And then the Soviets would have a serious shortage of fuel.